Why are there so many statists and communists here on this list now?
In looking over the traffic of the past weeks, I am struck by how many of the posts are defending statism and state action. Mostly by Europeans, coincidentally or not. Did some mention of our list in the Journal of Social Action cause you to subscribe? Why are you here? --Tim May "They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." --Rep. Ron Paul, TX, on how few Congresscritters saw the USA-PATRIOT Bill before voting overwhelmingly to impose a police state
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Tim May wrote:
In looking over the traffic of the past weeks, I am struck by how many of the posts are defending statism and state action. Mostly by Europeans, coincidentally or not.
Did some mention of our list in the Journal of Social Action cause you to subscribe?
Why are you here?
To drive you nuts. We all work for the CIA, MI5 and Mossad. :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:47:50AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: | | To drive you nuts. We all work for the CIA, MI5 and Mossad. All three? Man, MI5 started demanding refunds when they found I was selling the same reports to them and the boys in Langley. Or maybe it was the fact that it was all gossip columns from the Telegraph. But boy, were they pissed. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Adam Shostack wrote:
All three? Man, MI5 started demanding refunds when they found I was selling the same reports to them and the boys in Langley. Or maybe it was the fact that it was all gossip columns from the Telegraph. But boy, were they pissed.
The KGB isn't what it used to be, they'd make it easier to recycle all that stuff. China is up and coming tho, it's a lot easier to make it go around when you have lots of double agents to blame it on. The key is make sure they aren't pissed at *you*. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
At 2003-05-02 18:07 +0000, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:47:50AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: | | To drive you nuts. We all work for the CIA, MI5 and Mossad.
One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong... -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11
At 07:31 PM 05/02/2003 +0000, Justin wrote:
At 2003-05-02 18:07 +0000, Adam Shostack wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:47:50AM -0700, Mike Rosing wrote: | | To drive you nuts. We all work for the CIA, MI5 and Mossad.
One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong...
Hate to break this to you, Justin, but Tim may be too old to recognize that one unless he had younger siblings or friends with TV-watching kids... My sister who was born in 1963 watched it; I don't think my brother who was born in 1960 watched it much. If Tim's parents were early adopters of television, he'd be more likely to recognize Howdy Doody and Mickey Mouse Club.
On Friday 02 May 2003 09:42 am, Tim May wrote:
In looking over the traffic of the past weeks, I am struck by how many of the posts are defending statism and state action. Mostly by Europeans, coincidentally or not.
Did some mention of our list in the Journal of Social Action cause you to subscribe?
Why are you here?
Here's a better question, Tim. Why are you upset about it? I mean, there are two possibilities. Either this mailing list is for useful discussion, or it's not. If it *is*, then you should *welcome* the statists, the communists, the apologists, the Klansmen, feminists, nazis, Libertarians of any sort, Democrats, Greens, Republicans... anyone with the intelligence to write a coherent statement. (One could even argue against *that* limitation, but I won't.) Certainly, you have your views, and you should be expressing them, and you should encourage and support others who agree with you. But if this list is to be in any way useful, then you have to actually do this where people who *disagree* can read it. Preaching to the choir makes you feel warm and fuzzy, perhaps, and it makes for a smooth sermon, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good. Besides - what's the fucking point of supporting freedom of speech if you keep telling people to shut up? You're dangerously close to sounding like those cranks who claim they're being patriotic by attacking the Dixie Chicks for their speech. If it's not for useful discussion, just let us know. We'll all leave, and you can continue spreading the good word to precisely nobody. One of the worst things about this wonderful invention we call the Internet is that so many people choose to listen only to those they already agree with. -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 11:18 AM, Matt Beland wrote:
Besides - what's the fucking point of supporting freedom of speech if you keep telling people to shut up?
In order. First, "freedom of speech" is a legal issue, not a matter of whether one likes or supports or gives a platform for speech. This has been covered many times. Second, I have no power to make people shut up. As for "telling" them, I don't. I do wonder why they are on the list given the implications of the technologies. I don't think they've realized the implications for their world view and for the breeders and useless eaters they support.
You're dangerously close to sounding like those cranks who claim they're being patriotic by attacking the Dixie Chicks for their speech.
And as in that debate, where "free speech" is tossed around a lot, nothing in the Dixie Chicks case has involved freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. Think about it. --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001
On Friday 02 May 2003 14:57, Tim May wrote:
And as in that debate, where "free speech" is tossed around a lot, nothing in the Dixie Chicks case has involved freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. Think about it.
Tim, you're assuming that statists have the wherewithal to think. This assumption has yet to be demonstrated.
I do wonder why they are on the list given the implications of the technologies. I don't think they've realized the implications for their world view and for the breeders and useless eaters they support.
I'm not as confident of crypto's chances of destroying the state and leaving the parasites out in the cold. It's just as likely that the government(s) will declare all crypto illegal, except that necessary for the protection of their own secrets. Digital money is right out, of course. All in the name of anti-terrorism, or the War on Some Drugs, or for the chiiiiildren. Powerful computers, strong crypto, and big databases can lead either to anarchy or to an unstoppable Big Brother. Too close to call, right now. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby
On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 07:05 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
I'm not as confident of crypto's chances of destroying the state and leaving the parasites out in the cold.
I don't recall many discussions here about _timetables_ for such developments. Certainly I don't think _I_ have been so foolish as to say "Real Soon Now" or "Surely by the Year 2010!" Recall that Vinge's "True Names" was set at some indeterminate time in the future. Judging by the power of the computers, and modulo the fact that he wrote it in the 1970s, probably no earlier than 2030. But he was also careful not to specify the time. Likewise, "Ender's Game" took place far into the future. Which is not to say that science fiction novels determine the schedule! But it lends support to my claim that few, if any, of us would be so foolish as to predict when the full implications of strong crypto would have a major effect on governments. Arguably, some effects have been felt for years. And just as arguably, some other effects (notably digital money) seem to be further off now than they seemed to be when Digicash was still in existence. The nice thing for libertarians and anarchocapitalists about working on these sorts of ideas is that it beats the alternative: going to Libertarian Party conventions and trying to convince neighbors to vote for more liberty. Or, as too many good technical people have done, becoming lawyers. (Some of the skills are the same: the ability to absorb a lot of seemingly-unrelated facts, the ability to argue logically, and sometimes even an ideological edge. But since most lawyers don't end up working on cutting-edge constitutional issues, and since the constitutional issues are generally not moving in a libertarian direction despite the efforts of cypherpunks-friendly lawyers and scholars, I personally see going into "the law" as throwing one's life away.) I believe the great social and economic changes in history, affecting people and government and nations, have been largely technological. Geography is important, of course, too. But technology is something we can change, so this is what humans should focus on. These technological changes are obvious: metal-working, writing, weaponry, plumbing, the printing press, the steam engine, interchangeable parts, electrification, and all of the various technologies of the 20th century, including the telephone, television, birth control pills, and so on. The printing press is one of my favorite examples, as it illustrates how the "triad" of technology, law, and culture (similar to Larry Lessig's triad...I think we developed these ideas independently, but I haven't chased down who wrote what first) is "tipped" by major changes. The Church and State, circa pre-Gutenberg, "owned" certain types of knowledge, blessed by the medieval guilds: silversmithing, leathermaking, etc. The royal patents were conferred based on kickbacks, tithing, family connections, etc. Those who violated the patents of the guilds faced various kinds of punishment, I suppose up to and including death. Sort of like the Mafia stopping independent producers of porn from producing movies (a friend in LA had this happen to him). Now the "lawyers" of that age might have argued in courts (such as they were) that the power of the guilds should be broken, that greater economic prosperity would result from breaking the guilds. But little changed. Then came printing (movable type). While the first books printed were the obvious ones: hymnals, bibles, and other religious tracts, the printers began to print "how to" books. Not consciously "Toolmaking for Dummies" books, and not consciously "How to Undermine the Power of the State by Building Your Own Waterwheel," these books were nonetheless early how-to guides. Booklets on technology, on minerals, on all sorts of things a farmer might want to know. For the first time, knowing how to read was a useful skill. Perhaps someone predicted the long-term implications of what this spread of knowledge would mean. (Maybe Nostradamus was influenced this way...I haven't looked for evidence.) Someone trying to set a timetable for the sweeping changes would likely have not gotten it right. As someone wise once said, we tend to overestimate the short-term consequences and underestimate the long-term consequences. In the case of printing, the result over the following century or two was a rise in literacy rates (in the common languages, and this is when German, French, and English, for example, largely solidified into their current forms, viz. the Luther Bible, the King James Version, etc.). And the Protestant Reformation was built on printed words and on the people's ability to directly read the religious texts. A technology undermined the state and the church. This was repeated several more times, with samizdats undermining the power of the state in the USSR, with cassette tapes circulating in Shah-led Iran, with videotapes widely available even where banned in Islamic nations. And e-mail, of course. E-mails to and from the dissidents in Beijing. Repeated around the world. Strong crypto, of course, offers the opportunity for a complete bypassing of controls (more than just ciphers are needed, of course, as stego must be strong, as remailers must be compensated, and so on). Will the effects be that corner grocery stores are converted into cryptoanarchist data havens? Of course not. People will continue to buy and sell goods in their physical world, and this will continue to be a nexus of control and taxation. (Just as taxing land became more important after taxing knowledge, via the no longer all-powerful guilds, became less important. Land remained a nexus of control and taxation, as it does today. My property taxes attest to that, and will not be going down in my lifetime!) So, what changes may happen? Will enough tax evasion happen via cryptoanarchy to make the people fed up and thus give rise to a "tipping point"? (As the Reformation arguably was, with enough people fed up with the selling of indulgences and having the ability to read the religious words themselves.) And so on. I could ask about a dozen speculations of what might happen. But the point is not to predict some withering away of the state. The point is that unfettered communication, with the already-extant ability to use all sorts of alternative financial instruments (offshore accounts, PayPal, E-gold, etc.), is already producing interesting changes in the way the world works. More such changes are likely. When, I don't know. It could be that 5 years from now we'll be looking back a year or two to the rise of a digital cash company which is having the same success E-Bay had and saying "We knew it was coming." (In fact, friends of mine, the late Phil Salin and his colleagues at AMiX, had essentially identical plans for an auction service. And this was as early as 1987, as I did some consulting for Phil in late '87 and into '88. Their company was funded by Autodesk and they rolled out a version of their auction service in 1990-91. This was before Net connections were widely available--and commercial use of the Internet was still problematic--and their system had some problems, like glacial slowness. Also, instead of concentrating on a pure classified ads model, with people selling their used ski equipment and Pez dispensers, they concentrated on people selling their knowledge, their consulting expertise. This was a mistake. But had Autodesk not decided to disband both Xanadu (hypertext) and AMiX, they had a reasonable shot at being the company E-Bay became several years later.) But, getting back to this 5-year "prediction," I don't expect any widespread digital money system in the next few years. Too many regulatory hurdles (and regulators can slow things down, even if the long-term trends are not in their favor). The current police state, the U.S. sitting astride the world, giving orders. The money laundering, terrorism, treason focus of prosecutors. As you say:
It's just as likely that the government(s) will declare all crypto illegal, except that necessary for the protection of their own secrets. Digital money is right out, of course. All in the name of anti-terrorism, or the War on Some Drugs, or for the chiiiiildren. Powerful computers, strong crypto, and big databases can lead either to anarchy or to an unstoppable Big Brother. Too close to call, right now.
The important thing is to not become so attached to a specific prediction, or, worse, to a timetable, that one becomes discouraged. Oh, and to repeat something I have said many times, I think starting a company based on some imagined schedule for adoption of digital money is a disaster. I could be wrong on this, and I even hope someone proves me wrong, but I don't think I am. ("And in Year 3 of our business plan, the world converts to Digital Anonibucks (TM) and we all become wealthy.") Better to view digital money technologies as bits and pieces of technology which will be gradually adopted and used by others. The money will probably be made by folks who are qualified to work as engineers and programmers in other companies. Which is not to say people should not be thinking about forming small companies to do interesting things. Whether in digital money or data havens or timestamping, niches will exist. (But most of the people in the world don't see any particular need for these technologies--the technologies don't _yet_ do anything for them, and people don't usually make huge efforts purely for ideological reasons...especially when the ideology is not even theirs.) I expect early adopters to be in the "illegal" markets: pornography of various kinds (the most illegal kinds), on-line betting, information selling (a la BlackNet), and tax evasion. For mundane uses, people are happy giving credit card numbers and using relatively weak protocols like PayPal (for convenience, not security). But I've written about this in other articles, so no need to get into it here. The bottom line is this: we tend to overestimate short-term consequences and underestimate long-term consequences. So don't give up. --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787
One way to look at it: The changes that bringing this computational and communication capabilility to the public are difficult to imagine. It's like looking at a 'horseless carriage' - as early automobiles were called - and imagining strip malls, suburbs, freeways, and drive-by shootings. Scott McGready (yes, that one) -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2003-05-03 17:32 +0000, Tim May wrote:
But the point is not to predict some withering away of the state. The point is that unfettered communication, with the already-extant ability to use all sorts of alternative financial instruments (offshore accounts, PayPal, E-gold, etc.), is already producing interesting changes in the way the world works.
Interesting changes in this case means executive orders and increasing harassment of individuals by financial institutions, which are simultaneously forced to comply with continuously constricting regulations and rules, not to mention a vague and exploding "watchlist" of restricted entities and individuals. To wit http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sdn/sdnlist.txt rtsp://167.216.132.211:554/cspan/ndrive/ter102802_aba.rm (2:19:00) rtsp://167.216.132.211:554/cspan/ndrive/ter102802_aba2.rm (3:11:44) a brief/pedantic overview of the first part of the second realmedia file above: If you transact with a major financial institution and the transaction looks suspicious to them, SARs (Suspicious Activity Report) and CTRs (Currency Transaction Report) can now be filed online (theoretically meaning instantaneously) with FinCEN and Treasury's OFAC via forms signed/encrypted with certificates issued by http://www.aces.att.com/. It's called PACS (Patriot Act Communication System - isn't it cute - http://pacs.treas.gov/index.jsp), and those reports are analyzed by the Detroit data processing center of, you guessed it, the IRS. Fun for the whole family. (incidental industry note for terms in the videos: BSA = banking secrecy act, AML = Anti-Money Laundering) - -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2rc2 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj60K4QACgkQnH0ZJUVoUkMx7gCffxH1NVveUkTcxOOza4tNAUb8 dtkAnRpxlr11xT1s6HMpVjv43zkgO3uS =QM32 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:50:12PM +0000, Justin wrote:
Interesting changes in this case means executive orders and increasing harassment of individuals by financial institutions, which are simultaneously forced to comply with continuously constricting
To wit: http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-1000133.html?tag=fd_top
A bill that a House panel approved on Tuesday afternoon takes a two-pronged approach toward curbing Internet wagers. It could require Internet service providers (ISPs) to delete hyperlinks to offshore gambling sites and would order credit cards and online payment systems such as PayPal to identify unlawful transactions that might be related to gambling.
(Or E-Gold, or the other gold payment systems...) -Declan
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 07:34 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 08:50:12PM +0000, Justin wrote:
Interesting changes in this case means executive orders and increasing harassment of individuals by financial institutions, which are simultaneously forced to comply with continuously constricting
To wit:
http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-1000133.html?tag=fd_top
A bill that a House panel approved on Tuesday afternoon takes a two-pronged approach toward curbing Internet wagers. It could require Internet service providers (ISPs) to delete hyperlinks to offshore gambling sites and would order credit cards and online payment systems such as PayPal to identify unlawful transactions that might be related to gambling.
(Or E-Gold, or the other gold payment systems...)
Since "hyperlinks" are just strings of symbols, that is, speech, how is "could require Internet service providers (ISPs) to delete hyperlinks to offshore gambling sites" not an ipso fact, slam dunk violation of the First Amendment? What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is unclear? They all need killing. I really hope Osama kills that city and all in it. --Tim May ""Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." --Patrick Henry
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 08:51:04PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
What part of "Congress shall make no law..." is unclear?
Well, Rep. Ron Paul spoke out against the bill. He was the only 'critter I recall doing that. Nowadays, "Congress shall make no law..." is more and more observed only in the breach. -Declan
at Wednesday, May 07, 2003 4:51 AM, Tim May
Since "hyperlinks" are just strings of symbols, that is, speech, how is "could require Internet service providers (ISPs) to delete hyperlinks to offshore gambling sites" not an ipso fact, slam dunk violation of the First Amendment? Of course. but they did it for the DeCSS thing...
Interesting discussion. I'm thinking another inflection point which could tip the balance would be some travel technology breakthrough -- 100x faster, 100x cheaper (relative to individual wealth -- which itself increasing in real terms over time as productivity improves due to automation, efficiency, process improvement etc). If you could shrink the world so that people can basically commute from anywhere to anywhere for a cost significantly less than the difference in tax rates between tax havens such as Bahamas (0% income tax) compared with western direct and investment tax rates of 40-60% and beyond marginal rates. - This is mostly why I was disappointed to see the plans to scrap concorde -- it was expensive in real terms due to current fuel and current salaries as set by current economic climate; however with a cruise speed of mach 2.0 it was 2.4x as fast as typical passenger jets. (Originally planned for mach 2.5 - mach 3.0, but material science wasn't up to the task when concorde's were built in the 70s). But scrapping them seems like a step backwards. So there were merchant bankers and celebrities jetting backwards and forwards from new york on it. But what wealthy are doing today can be what everyone is doing some years on when things have become cheaper relatively speaking. - The other aspect of travel speed -- the crappy depature and arrival procedures -- have gotten significantly worse since WTC terror attack. The current political climate is as a result a poorer one for business as it has basically increased the cost of travel (in convenience). - So what about other travel: magnetic levitation trains, mag lev trains in vacuum tubes, nuclear powered transport (with design margin to amply cope with safety issues); and further out maybe teleportation. - The other issue is how governments would react to transportation advances -- maybe just change tax laws so you get charged the max of countries you work or reside in. - Another potential and probably more likely to happen medium term technology could be improvements in display technology making telepresence more functional. 3d projective displays able to project into free-space for example allowing basically free-form tele-presence. It would be harder for governments to attempt to tax remote workers, but they might try it anyway by passing the tax burden on to the employers -- forcing them to collect local taxes against remote workers. Crypto-anarchy has interface problems also, it just allows you to be a virtual remote worker because your location is no longer discernable. Still governments may try to force local companies to pass the tax burden on. India is an interesting example of remote workers -- many US companies are apparently moving jobs wholesale to India to try to reduce costs in the face of poor economy. Another corporate trend to avoid US taxation is where companies move their notional headquarters off-shore so that they are not taxed on international sales. Either way the fact that companies are doing this suggests that currently companies themselves are ahead of individuals in mobility to avoid taxation. This same principle should allow for example remote workers, or virtual remote workers to work for the notional off-short company. Virtual identities with documentation demonstrating domicile in Bahamas or other tax-havens should even allow a virtual worker to work for a company under government imposed obligations to employ virtual remote workers in the US. Adam On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:32:02AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
[...] These technological changes are obvious: metal-working, writing, weaponry, plumbing, the printing press, the steam engine, interchangeable parts, electrification, and all of the various technologies of the 20th century, including the telephone, television, birth control pills, and so on.
The printing press is one of my favorite examples, as it illustrates how the "triad" of technology, law, and culture (similar to Larry Lessig's triad...I think we developed these ideas independently, but I haven't chased down who wrote what first) is "tipped" by major changes. The Church and State, circa pre-Gutenberg, "owned" certain types of knowledge, blessed by the medieval guilds: silversmithing, leathermaking, etc. The royal patents were conferred based on kickbacks, tithing, family connections, etc. Those who violated the patents of the guilds faced various kinds of punishment, I suppose up to and including death. Sort of like the Mafia stopping independent producers of porn from producing movies (a friend in LA had this happen to him).
Now the "lawyers" of that age might have argued in courts (such as they were) that the power of the guilds should be broken, that greater economic prosperity would result from breaking the guilds.
But little changed.
Then came printing (movable type). While the first books printed were the obvious ones: hymnals, bibles, and other religious tracts, the printers began to print "how to" books. Not consciously "Toolmaking for Dummies" books, and not consciously "How to Undermine the Power of the State by Building Your Own Waterwheel," these books were nonetheless early how-to guides. Booklets on technology, on minerals, on all sorts of things a farmer might want to know. For the first time, knowing how to read was a useful skill.
Perhaps someone predicted the long-term implications of what this spread of knowledge would mean. (Maybe Nostradamus was influenced this way...I haven't looked for evidence.)
Someone trying to set a timetable for the sweeping changes would likely have not gotten it right.
As someone wise once said, we tend to overestimate the short-term consequences and underestimate the long-term consequences.
In the case of printing, the result over the following century or two was a rise in literacy rates (in the common languages, and this is when German, French, and English, for example, largely solidified into their current forms, viz. the Luther Bible, the King James Version, etc.). And the Protestant Reformation was built on printed words and on the people's ability to directly read the religious texts.
A technology undermined the state and the church.
This was repeated several more times, with samizdats undermining the power of the state in the USSR, with cassette tapes circulating in Shah-led Iran, with videotapes widely available even where banned in Islamic nations.
And e-mail, of course. E-mails to and from the dissidents in Beijing. Repeated around the world.
Strong crypto, of course, offers the opportunity for a complete bypassing of controls (more than just ciphers are needed, of course, as stego must be strong, as remailers must be compensated, and so on).
Will the effects be that corner grocery stores are converted into cryptoanarchist data havens? Of course not.
People will continue to buy and sell goods in their physical world, and this will continue to be a nexus of control and taxation. (Just as taxing land became more important after taxing knowledge, via the no longer all-powerful guilds, became less important. Land remained a nexus of control and taxation, as it does today. My property taxes attest to that, and will not be going down in my lifetime!)
So, what changes may happen? Will enough tax evasion happen via cryptoanarchy to make the people fed up and thus give rise to a "tipping point"? (As the Reformation arguably was, with enough people fed up with the selling of indulgences and having the ability to read the religious words themselves.)
And so on. I could ask about a dozen speculations of what might happen.
But the point is not to predict some withering away of the state. The point is that unfettered communication, with the already-extant ability to use all sorts of alternative financial instruments (offshore accounts, PayPal, E-gold, etc.), is already producing interesting changes in the way the world works.
On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 11:18 AM, Matt Beland wrote:
You're dangerously close to sounding like those cranks who claim they're being patriotic by attacking the Dixie Chicks for their speech.
Friday, May 02, 2003 11:58 AM, Tim May wrote:
And as in that debate, where "free speech" is tossed around a lot, nothing in the Dixie Chicks case has involved freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. Think about it.
Of course the Dixie Chicks controversy does not implicate Constitutional freedom of speech. The government is not restricting the DC's speech (i.e. not throwing them in jail or censoring them). However, the ever consolidating corporate media (in conjunction with the powers that be in Washington) very effectively limits and contains the scope of debate about national and international issues. See Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Herman) http://www.commoncouragepress.com/chomsky_consent.html. The DCs got in hot water because they dared to step outside the narrow range of permissible debate in the mainstream infotainment industry. Sure there was plenty of debate about the war, but the media treats different views in very different ways. The DCs are held out as opponents of the war to show who stupid opposing the war was - they are just country singers - what the hell do they know about global politics. And the infotainment industry (news included) ignores the multitude of articulate, intelligent speakers who could forcefully explain the numerous reasons the war was immoral, unjust, and not in the interest of the U.S. The treatment is subtle, but very effective. Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship? I subscribe to this list for a number of reasons. One of them is because of the potential crypto has for destabilizing capitalist/monopolist and state control over information and expression (e.g. Freenet). -Andy Lopata from the People's Republic of Eugene.
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 09:00 PM, Andy Lopata wrote:
Of course the Dixie Chicks controversy does not implicate Constitutional freedom of speech. The government is not restricting the DC's speech (i.e. not throwing them in jail or censoring them).
However, the ever consolidating corporate media (in conjunction with the powers that be in Washington) very effectively limits and contains the scope of debate about national and international issues. See Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Herman) http://www.commoncouragepress.com/chomsky_consent.html. The DCs got in hot water because they dared to step outside the narrow range of permissible debate in the mainstream infotainment industry. Sure there was plenty of debate about the war, but the media treats different views in very different ways. The DCs are held out as opponents of the war to show who stupid opposing the war was - they are just country singers - what the hell do they know about global politics. And the infotainment industry (news included) ignores the multitude of articulate, intelligent speakers who could forcefully explain the numerous reasons the war was immoral, unjust, and not in the interest of the U.S. The treatment is subtle, but very effective.
Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship?
The Dixie Chicks catered to the right wing, country music, monster truck rally crowd. Not surprising that when they insulted their crowd's leader, the crowd reacted. Being against the war hasn't hurt Michael Moore's popularity in _his_ crowd. It's silly to say that "freedom of speech" implies that people should continue to find popular those who have insulted their views or their leaders. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 09:00:08PM -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship?
If a sufficiently repressive government doesn't like what you say, you end up with your ears lopped off, or you're dead and your family is tortured. If the Corporate Media Barons don't like what you say, you get to keep saying it. Hope that helps put things in perspective. It is true that there are government-imposed barriers to entry that aid in keeping the media megaliths in power. But it is also true that a heck of lot of Americans like what they get from the MMs (which must respond to market demand at some level, after all), and it is also true that the claims of MM appear to be loudest from leftist quarters that have little novel to say anyway. -Declan
On Tuesday, May 06, 2003 8:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 09:00:08PM -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship?
If a sufficiently repressive government doesn't like what you say, you end up with your ears lopped off, or you're dead and your family is tortured.
If the corporations didn't have the government to do their dirty work for them, they'd do it themselves - like the historical terrorizing and killing of labor organizers. But I guess commies deserve it?
If the Corporate Media Barons don't like what you say, you get to keep saying it.
If you don't mind losing your job: http://www.nandotimes.com/entertainment/story/879662p-6132229c.html
Hope that helps put things in perspective.
No, it doesn't really help put things in perspective. In a time where it has never been more apparent that the interests of the capitalist powers and the government are very much the same - e.g. the oil industry-controlled/owned gov't invades a sovereign nation for control of more oil, and further consolidation and control of global resources - I do *not* understand the argument that the government is bad, but the forces behind that gov't action, and profits made from that gov't action, are good. My point is only that control of information helps control outcomes that effect everyone. Entrenched corporate powers have a vested interest in controlling information (as do the politicians they own in D.C.) so that decisions regarding technology, etc. benefit them. Crypto and other technologies accessible to all threatens this control - both corporate and gov't. I just don't get the market-will-fix-everything argument. Much of the Internet is based on public resources and many of which (e.g. open protocols) are valuable because they are *not* commodified. Newbie flame-baiter, Andy Lopata
At 09:37 AM 5/9/2003 -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
If the corporations didn't have the government to do their dirty work for them, they'd do it themselves - like the historical terrorizing and killing of labor organizers.
Which is and should be illegal.
If the Corporate Media Barons don't like what you say, you get to keep saying it.
If you don't mind losing your job: http://www.nandotimes.com/entertainment/story/879662p-6132229c.html
Your boss tells you not to do something and you do it anyway, and then get fired? Maybe your boss was stupid, but sheesh, this isn't the same thing as getting tortured, your family imprisoned and raped, and executed. Hope you can see the difference.
Newbie flame-baiter, Andy
Yep, that's about right. Teach me to respond to someone who's just trying to start a flamewar. Keep it up and you'll be the third candidate for my killfile! :) -Declan
Matt Breland wrote:
Besides - what's the fucking point of supporting freedom of speech if you keep telling people to shut up? You're dangerously close to sounding like those cranks who claim they're being patriotic by attacking the Dixie Chicks for their speech.
If it's not for useful discussion, just let us know. We'll all leave, and you can continue spreading the good word to precisely nobody.
One of the worst things about this wonderful invention we call the Internet is that so many people choose to listen only to those they already agree with.
Well said. But don't leave, get combative, truth comes out by hammer blows not friendly persuasion. Telling people to shut up is a national craze reports the Wall Street Journal, like aroma therapy. Tim is customarily wide minded about most things, including who posts here. When he goes on the attack, though, its purposeful, usually to hot poker fat-ass noodling. Don't expect from Tim polite disagreement, far less polite agreement. Nobody is in charge here, nobody is the man. Everybody is a bull shitting loser, or a loon, as Tim anoints his taunters reflexively. Choate is the norm, goddam mule, vainly stubborn and resistant to reason as you'd expect of any coddled American self-indulgent supremacist racist ignorant peasant who believes he's an unrecognized Mensa. Give a fool money and he's a genius, and often a crank to ward off panhandlers. Best to stay alert to getting your ass rasped if you get lazy, or presume this vile extreme fighting pit a comfortable refuge. Fuck such fake-wrestling fools to death, as the old fart might snarl -- just before he blows their pea-brains out to make a barbeque stew stirred with cactus in a vat of dragon-fire jalapenos. Statist, communist, those old word farts are over if you're under 30. Whatever happened to the iron-gut cypherpunk who was blackbelt in gobbling jalapenos?
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:18:22AM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
On Friday 02 May 2003 09:42 am, Tim May wrote:
In looking over the traffic of the past weeks, I am struck by how many of the posts are defending statism and state action. Mostly by Europeans, coincidentally or not.
Did some mention of our list in the Journal of Social Action cause you to subscribe?
Why are you here?
Here's a better question, Tim.
Why are you upset about it?
It's a constant distraction. It's analogous to a radio astronomy mailing list constantly being trolled by flat earthers.
If it's not for useful discussion, just let us know. We'll all leave, and you can continue spreading the good word to precisely nobody.
Once the flat earthers leave, the conversation will get interesting again. -Bill
On Friday 02 May 2003 02:38 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:18:22AM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
Why are you upset about it?
It's a constant distraction.
It's analogous to a radio astronomy mailing list constantly being trolled by flat earthers.
Bad analogy. It is more like a radio astronomy list being populated by astronomers who support both the constant-expansion ("open") universe model and those who support the eventual-collapse ("cyclic") universe model. Both groups are astronomers, but because they are both intelligent people who support different models, the models are constantly refined to prove one side or the other.
If it's not for useful discussion, just let us know. We'll all leave, and you can continue spreading the good word to precisely nobody.
Once the flat earthers leave, the conversation will get interesting again.
Not supported by current evidence. A few years ago, this list was highly interesting, and highly volatile. Populated by libertarians, anarchists, crypto experts, feds, political science students, scientists, cranks, gun nuts, gun control nuts, etc. Now? Looks like you've driven most of the interesting people away. Who's left? The ones who agree with you? Where's the fun in that? Don't you get tired of talking into an echo machine? -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:08:20PM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
On Friday 02 May 2003 02:38 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
It's analogous to a radio astronomy mailing list constantly being trolled by flat earthers.
Bad analogy. It is more like a radio astronomy list being populated by astronomers who support both the constant-expansion ("open") universe model and those who support the eventual-collapse ("cyclic") universe model. Both groups are astronomers, but because they are both intelligent people who support different models, the models are constantly refined to prove one side or the other.
I think my analogy is good. I think your error is displayed by your analogy. In your example, both groups are astronomers. In the current situation on this list, both groups are _not_ cypherpunks, if you accept the definition of cypherpunks as "people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible." If you don't accept that definition, that's fine, but I think my definition is consistent with the history of the list, and my guess is that Tim would agree. And he's the one who asked the question in the first place. I think it's a good question, and I'm curious to hear the answer from one of the folks it's aimed at.
A few years ago, this list was highly interesting, and highly volatile. Populated by libertarians, anarchists, crypto experts, feds, political science students, scientists, cranks, gun nuts, gun control nuts, etc. Now? Looks like you've driven most of the interesting people away. Who's left? The ones who agree with you? Where's the fun in that?
You left statists out of your list, unless you were including them when you said "cranks" and "gun control nuts". The original question was about statists. Some interesting people have left. Other interesting people have joined and are contributing. -Bill
On Friday 02 May 2003 04:14 pm, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
I think my analogy is good. I think your error is displayed by your analogy. In your example, both groups are astronomers.
In the current situation on this list, both groups are _not_ cypherpunks, if you accept the definition of cypherpunks as "people who use encryption technology to make statism impossible." If you don't accept that definition, that's fine, but I think my definition is consistent with the history of the list, and my guess is that Tim would agree. And he's the one who asked the question in the first place. I think it's a good question, and I'm curious to hear the answer from one of the folks it's aimed at.
Accepting your definition for a moment, your analogy is still flawed because it assumes one group is rejecting science altogether, where here the two groups simply arrive at different conclusions from the same data. But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the social and political effects thereof. One definition assumes a conclusion, one definition defines a group in search of a conclusion. And really, my question would remain valid in either case. IF this list is to be the home of any sort of useful discussion, then the discussion must include both sides of the issue. Otherwise you don't have discussion, you have dogma.
You left statists out of your list, unless you were including them when you said "cranks" and "gun control nuts". The original question was about statists.
Statists and communists both would be included in politician, Republican, Green, Democrat, Libertarian, crank (though not only statists and politicians fit there) and gun control nut. Just pick the flavor that matches the label.
Some interesting people have left. Other interesting people have joined and are contributing.
And being railed at as statists and communists. Oh, some interesting people have joined on the other side, as well - but again, what value in one-sided discussion? -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 04:50:08PM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the social and political effects thereof.
By that definition, various federal agents, narcs, and prosecutors would qualify as ardent cypherpunks. -Declan
On Tuesday 06 May 2003 08:02 pm, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 04:50:08PM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
But in fact, I don't completely agree with your definition. A Cypherpunk is one who is interested in the technology and use of encryption, and the social and political effects thereof.
By that definition, various federal agents, narcs, and prosecutors would qualify as ardent cypherpunks.
Yep. Wrong-headed cypherpunks who must be corrected or destroyed, more than likely. But cypherpunks none the less. After all, just because their end objectives and motives are completely and totally opposite to yours or mine does not mean there aren't significant contributions they could make for our benefit. Just as there are things that other, "correct" cypherpunks could do or have done which are or could be detrimental. -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
I find it marginally useful to have the trolls around, then you can build better and better arguements against their supid ideas - it's a good, but wasted excercise. It's something like building better mouse traps - only sadly, these mice don't learn, so the challenge just isn't there. If you're bored, you can tweak them, otherwise in the .procmailrc they go. :) But did you notice how all the spams about "How to build a pipe bomb with stuff that came out from my ass" have vanished in the last few years? I do suspect some of those were morons from AOL (or other unthinking zones on the net), but some of those AOL morons were FedZ. Or so we gather from the fun of the Jimmy B/otoT trials. It wouldn't surprise me to find some of the current trolls are FedZ. Wasn't there something in police tests, where if you're too smart you can't be a cop - because you'd be bored? I wonder if that applies to FedZ too? It would certainly explain the lack of intelligence these neo-trolls display. Where are Dr. Denning and Sterndark when you need a good fight to pick, eh? (Retheroical: I know Denning changed her tune a while ago...) 8^) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Fri, 2 May 2003, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
It's a constant distraction.
It's analogous to a radio astronomy mailing list constantly being trolled by flat earthers.
Once the flat earthers leave, the conversation will get interesting again.
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:18:22AM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
Why are you upset about it?
I mean, there are two possibilities. Either this mailing list is for useful discussion, or it's not.
I don't think Tim is upset (not speaking for him of course but his message had more the tone of boredom and mild curiosity). Yes, this mailing list is for useful discussion. Remember, going over the same old arguments does get stale after a while. There is also an unspoken assumption that folks who hope to be interesting list posters will share a common vocabulary and literature. Books that seem to influence cpunks include Applied Crypto, Heinlein's earlier stuff, Vinge, Ender's Game, Stephenson's Cryptonomicon (a little recent, but still), Road to Serfdom, David Friedman, some of Murray Rothbard and von Mises' work. Lately I've been rereading some of the original public choice theory work out of George Mason (and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy," a great read). I'd guess that except in die-hard lefty cases, it's somewhat difficult to read those kind of volumes and still remain enthusiastic about tax rates that exceed, say, 50 percent and the accompanying regulatory structure. Perhaps more to the point, this list has always been about (at least I discovered it in late 1994) the social and political impacts of crypto and related technologies, and those are probably not incredibly friendly to a hyper-regulatory state. So, yes, the "Klansmen, feminists, nazis, Libertarians of any sort, Democrats, Greens, Republicans" are welcome. But may we ask in turn that they appreciate the vocabulary and literature? -Declan
On Friday 02 May 2003 03:17 pm, Declan McCullagh wrote:
There is also an unspoken assumption that folks who hope to be interesting list posters will share a common vocabulary and literature. Books that seem to influence cpunks include Applied Crypto, Heinlein's earlier stuff, Vinge, Ender's Game, Stephenson's Cryptonomicon (a little recent, but still), Road to Serfdom, David Friedman, some of Murray Rothbard and von Mises' work. Lately I've been rereading some of the original public choice theory work out of George Mason (and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy," a great read).
All good choices. Add "Ender's Shadow" for an interesting twist on the original story. Terry Pratchett's stuff for a lighter satirical look, although he tends to be cynical about all sides of the debate rather than just one side. And, of course, the classics as well - Gibbon, for example.
I'd guess that except in die-hard lefty cases, it's somewhat difficult to read those kind of volumes and still remain enthusiastic about tax rates that exceed, say, 50 percent and the accompanying regulatory structure. Perhaps more to the point, this list has always been about (at least I discovered it in late 1994) the social and political impacts of crypto and related technologies, and those are probably not incredibly friendly to a hyper-regulatory state.
So, yes, the "Klansmen, feminists, nazis, Libertarians of any sort, Democrats, Greens, Republicans" are welcome. But may we ask in turn that they appreciate the vocabulary and literature?
Interesting question. Are they permitted to ask that we appreciate their vocabulary and literature? In reality, I suspect most people here have already read "their" literature, and rejected it as not logical or otherwise flawed. I did. And that makes it harder to respect the majority of them, because it's not really about their disagreement but simply that they're *wrong*. The challenge is to prove this and convince them, not to drive them away with the metaphorical equivalent of sticks. -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 04:52:10PM -0700, Matt Beland wrote:
The challenge is to prove this and convince them, not to drive them away with the metaphorical equivalent of sticks.
Some folks might want to spend their time proving and convincing. I think it gets old after a while, and the challenge lacks appeal. I've never thought of the cypherpunks as proselytizing types. But hey, knock your self out. The September that Never Ended was years ago, so there's an infinite supply of people for you to bang your head against. -Bill
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:07:49PM -0500, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
Some folks might want to spend their time proving and convincing. I think it gets old after a while, and the challenge lacks appeal.
Right. There's an endless supply of list-newbies who are happy to post unintentional flame-bait. As Bill said, it gets old after a decade or so. -Declan
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 08:05 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:07:49PM -0500, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
Some folks might want to spend their time proving and convincing. I think it gets old after a while, and the challenge lacks appeal.
Right. There's an endless supply of list-newbies who are happy to post unintentional flame-bait. As Bill said, it gets old after a decade or so.
And I don't think all of the "nonbelievers" are baiters or trollers. A couple of the Europeans seem a bit naive and brainwashed, but they may just need to be exposed to some of the things we in the West have access to for many decades. It's the American trolls I think are beyond salvage. --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater
At 06:17 PM 5/2/03 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: ...
Perhaps more to the point, this list has always been about (at least I discovered it in late 1994) the social and political impacts of crypto and related technologies, and those are probably not incredibly friendly to a hyper-regulatory state.
Well, that part is still to be determined. Maybe the direction of technology will ultimately lead to the collapse of the nation state and the rise of David Friedman style anarchocapitalist protection agencies to replace it (good luck solving the military defense problem!), or maybe it will lead to a global, "ubiquitous governance" implementation of Singapore--clean streets, low crime, and economic productivity, all under the watchful eye of the state. Or another zillion possibilities, including the apparently more likely ones that include continuing existence and power of states, but with a change in the balance of powers in different areas--no privacy in public, but enormous privacy in what you do on your computer at home, etc. Or an expansion of the current situation, where the new technology results in less privacy from the government, but enormously more privacy from neighbors and family members. (Think of cellphones, cordless phones, the internet, and home video rentals. For most people, keeping their nosy neighbors from knowing they watch porno films is more important than keeping the FBI from knowing.)
So, yes, the "Klansmen, feminists, nazis, Libertarians of any sort, Democrats, Greens, Republicans" are welcome. But may we ask in turn that they appreciate the vocabulary and literature?
A huge amount of the value of this list, for me at least, is that events and news are seen through the lens of a certain kind of skepticism that only security people seem to have, along with some technological sophistication and a willingness to "think the unthinkable." This is consistent with a wide range of political and social and religious beliefs. It's how you can mix anarchocapitalists and greens and anarchocommunists and various flavors of libertarians and various others, and still get an interesting list with real discussion on it, instead of endless flamewars.
-Declan
--John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 06:49 AM, John Kelsey wrote:
A huge amount of the value of this list, for me at least, is that events and news are seen through the lens of a certain kind of skepticism that only security people seem to have, along with some technological sophistication and a willingness to "think the unthinkable." This is consistent with a wide range of political and social and religious beliefs. It's how you can mix anarchocapitalists and greens and anarchocommunists and various flavors of libertarians and various others, and still get an interesting list with real discussion on it, instead of endless flamewars.
Where are the endless flamewars? In fact, though Matt Beland has complained that the libertarians have driven off all the good posters, I found that he has written virtually no posts himself, until the last few days. When he added his criticism of libertarians, I did not recognize his name, so I looked for past articles he has written: a few in 2001 and a few in 2002. If he and others like him want more content, they ought to be writing it. --Tim May
-- On 3 May 2003 at 9:49, John Kelsey wrote:
Maybe the direction of technology will ultimately lead to the collapse of the nation state and the rise of David Friedman style anarchocapitalist protection agencies to replace it (good luck solving the military defense problem!)
Against the Soviet Union in its prime, or against the Nazi commie alliance, an anarcho capitalist america would have been in deep trouble, if it had the same level of technology as the actually existent america had back then. Against current enemies, not a problem. Observe the big role and great effectiveness of "special forces" (small numbers of high quality espionage style forces). An anarcho capitalist america, while it would have trouble fielding big armies, would probably do special forces operations considerably better than big government bureacracies do. Current enemies are not much, because americans have a technological lead. Americans have a technological lead because america is the close to the most capitalist country in the world, and it is the most capitalist large country. An anarcho capitalist America would in time have an even greater technological lead. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 9kQD8V66S+pVcKVRtUTYuDE0WULh6Xn1tbd021Hm 4W9L1mnKxVqx/QMuhjG/OVrV6Jsb7op/OGb86Jonc
At 11:29 AM 5/3/03 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
On 3 May 2003 at 9:49, John Kelsey wrote:
Maybe the direction of technology will ultimately lead to the collapse of the nation state and the rise of David Friedman style anarchocapitalist protection agencies to replace it (good luck solving the military defense problem!)
Against the Soviet Union in its prime, or against the Nazi commie alliance, an anarcho capitalist america would have been in deep trouble, if it had the same level of technology as the actually existent america had back then.
This is the core question: What happens when the anarchocapitalist society and the aggressive authoritarian one have similar technology levels? It's easy to see how just about any social organization will work for defending yourself from enemies at a much lower technology level. But when the forces are within spitting distance of having the same technology, social organization becomes very important. If one side is organized as several hundred independent, overlapping protection agencies, some with mutual defense treaties, others without them, while the other is organized as a centralized army, it looks to me like the centralized forces have huge advantages. ...
Current enemies are not much, because americans have a technological lead. Americans have a technological lead because america is the close to the most capitalist country in the world, and it is the most capitalist large country. An anarcho capitalist America would in time have an even greater technological lead.
This is the interesting question: Would the anarchocapitalist society have and keep an advantage? I don't think you can answer it except by experiment, but it's at least as feasible to me that the right kind of authoritarian state might be pretty damned good at keeping up with an anarchocapitalist one for technology, and would be better at some technology. (Think of what you can learn about engineered diseases when you have a big population of "volunteers" from your political prisons to experiment on, a la Draka.) And the biggest problem is that an open society won't keep things secret all that well. That's good for progress--you can't predict who is going to make the next breakthrough--but it's not so good for security. But it's hard to see why a technically adept authoritarian society couldn't keep up by simply reading the open literature and planting a few spies. Especially if it could also occasionally manage a takeover, or an ideological conversion. As an example of this, think of NSA and related agencies, vis-a-vis the public crypto community. I'm sure they never had any idea of some of the stuff that's been done in academic cryptography before it was published. But they still have an advantage, because they don't publish and we do. Nor is "technologically adept authoritarian society" an obvious contradiction, no matter how nice it would be if it were. Germany wasn't exactly a hotbed of classical liberal thought before the two world wars, and certainly wasn't a free society once the Nazis took over, and yet it was unambiguously able to do high tech well. The USSR was basically a third-world country, complete with starving peasants, and yet was able to keep up with the West in military technology for many years.
--digsig James A. Donald
--John Kelsey, kelsey.j@ix.netcom.com PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
John Kelsey wrote:
This is the core question: What happens when the anarchocapitalist society and the aggressive authoritarian one have similar technology levels? [...] If one side is organized as several hundred independent, overlapping protection agencies, some with mutual defense treaties, others without them, while the other is organized as a centralized army, it looks to me like the centralized forces have huge advantages.
Let's take a look at some historical examples. 1. Switzerland during WWII. While other more centralized nations were easy pickings for the Nazis, the tiny Swiss nation managed to retain its freedom and independence as a small island of freedom in a sea of fascism. Several factors entered into this, including the Swiss willingness to fight to the bitter end and their long policy of strict neutrality; but one oft-overlooked advantage the Swiss had was their loose confederation and lack of strong central control. Your average Swiss citizen doesn't even know who the Swiss president is; it's just not that important of a position. Whereas other countries gave in to the Nazis without firing a shot when the governmental leaders capitulated and ordered a surrender, in the case of Switzerland there really wasn't anybody with the authority to surrender the country... and the fiercely independent Swiss would have disobeyed any orders to surrender, anyway. (For example, at one point there was some concern among the junior officers in the Swiss military that their higher-ups might be considering capitulation. They formed an organization among themselves with the intention of offing their senior officers and taking over command should any form of surrender be attempted.) As a result, although Hitler made it clear that he loathed Switzerland, and repeatedly had plans drawn up for its invasion, there were always easier targets and other pressing matters to be taken care of first. In the meantime, the Swiss observed the German's military tactics and modified their own defense strategy accordingly. The Swiss maintained their freedom not because they had the military might to defeat Germany; they didn't. They stayed free because they ensured that the price for conquering them would be unacceptably high, and the gains unacceptably low. 2. Ireland and England circa 1100 A.D. Ireland was a lawful anarchy; England was more centralized. When the Normans invaded, it took them not much more than a month to conquer England. All they had to do was obtain the surrender of the appropriate authorities. As is often the case, the existing governmental apparatus was then used to administer the occupation. The conquest of Ireland took 300 years, and some say it was never really completed. Ireland didn't have any central authority that could surrender. The main form of societal organization was the tuath. The territory of a tuath was the sum of the lands of its members; people could and did change their affiliation from one tuath to another without moving their place of residence. The tuath "king" was a religious and military leader; he was not a ruler, and had no special powers to make law nor immunity from lawsuit. This system was an invader's nightmare. The invaders had to fight for every square inch of Ireland. Even when a tuath was apparently defeated, the tuath king could only surrender for himself, but not for the tuath members; they were free to join a different tuath. So effectively, the invaders had to obtain their surrenders one household at a time. 3. Somalia. The world's sole remaining superpower, whose military spending and might exceeds that of the next several contenders combined, was sent packing by the people of a destitute country lacking any significant industrial base and still recovering from a nasty civil war. The Somalis didn't have to defeat the invader to win; they just had to make remaining in Somalia too politically costly for the invader Clinton.
At 09:01 AM 05/06/2003 -0500, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
1. Switzerland during WWII. While other more centralized nations were easy pickings for the Nazis, the tiny Swiss nation managed to retain its freedom and independence as a small island of freedom in a sea of fascism. Several factors entered into this, including the Swiss willingness to fight to the bitter end and their long policy of strict neutrality; but one oft-overlooked advantage the Swiss had was their loose confederation and lack of strong central control. Your average Swiss citizen doesn't even know who the Swiss president is; it's just not that important of a position.
IIRC, Switzerland and Australia have both had episodes of the president or prime minister dying and nobody missing them for a few days or nobody recognizing the body when it was found.
Whereas other countries gave in to the Nazis without firing a shot when the governmental leaders capitulated and ordered a surrender, in the case of Switzerland there really wasn't anybody with the authority to surrender the country... and the fiercely independent Swiss would have disobeyed any orders to surrender, anyway. (For example, at one point there was some concern among the junior officers in the Swiss military that their higher-ups might be considering capitulation. They formed an organization among themselves with the intention of offing their senior officers and taking over command should any form of surrender be attempted.)
As a result, although Hitler made it clear that he loathed Switzerland, and repeatedly had plans drawn up for its invasion, there were always easier targets and other pressing matters to be taken care of first. In the meantime, the Swiss observed the German's military tactics and modified their own defense strategy accordingly. The Swiss maintained their freedom not because they had the military might to defeat Germany; they didn't. They stayed free because they ensured that the price for conquering them would be unacceptably high, and the gains unacceptably low.
The Swiss didn't invent one of their major defense technologies, which was mountains that are lousy places to run massed tank battles, but they used them quite effectively, just as they did against massed elephant-mounted forces. Also, the banking business was one of the more useful things in Switzerland (as opposed to cheese and chocolate), and it's much more difficult to usefully steal a bunch of burned fragments of bank account ledgers than a harbor or a bunch of flat farmland.
2. Ireland and England circa 1100 A.D. Ireland was a lawful anarchy; England was more centralized. When the Normans invaded, it took them not much more than a month to conquer England. All they had to do was obtain the surrender of the appropriate authorities. As is often the case, the existing governmental apparatus was then used to administer the occupation.
The Conquest actually took quite a lot longer than that. Sure, after Hastings the Conqueror's forces were on the island, and he was able to use some of Harald's forces against some of the other lesser kings of parts of England, but the solidity of central control over England was always dubious, what with various sets of regional kings, Vikings from Scandinavia, Scots and Picts in the north, Vikings from their hangouts in Ireland, uncles and cousins and younger brothers with claims to the throne (and the willingness to fight for them). The Conqueror stomped down lots of this over the next decade or so, and had more control than anybody had had since maybe Alfred, but it was a couple of generations before the Norman were solidly in control.
3. Somalia. The world's sole remaining superpower, whose military spending and might exceeds that of the next several contenders combined, was sent packing by the people of a destitute country lacking any significant industrial base and still recovering from a nasty civil war. The Somalis didn't have to defeat the invader to win; they just had to make remaining in Somalia too politically costly for the invader Clinton.
The UN were also sent packing.
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 08:12:15AM -0400, John Kelsey wrote:
This is the interesting question: Would the anarchocapitalist society have and keep an advantage? I don't think you can answer it except by experiment, but it's at least as feasible to me that the right kind of authoritarian state might be pretty damned good at keeping up with an anarchocapitalist one for technology, and would be better at some technology. (Think of what you can learn about engineered diseases when
I think this is right. I would not claim that a purely capitalist state is most efficient at producing technology with warfighting capabilities; I'd argue only that it's best at maximizing the happiness (and therefore the total economic output) of people who lived there. That could lead to technology with military applications or it could just be some pretty funky immersion sim. :) -Declan
At 11:29 AM -0700 5/3/03, James A. Donald wrote:
An anarcho capitalist america, while it would have trouble fielding big armies, would probably do special forces operations considerably better than big government bureacracies do.
They used to be called "privateers".
Bring back the letter of marque!
:-).
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
On Friday 02 May 2003 5:42 pm, Tim May wrote:
In looking over the traffic of the past weeks, I am struck by how many of the posts are defending statism and state action. Mostly by Europeans, coincidentally or not.
Did some mention of our list in the Journal of Social Action cause you to subscribe?
Why are you here?
We can't get past the perimeter alarms and the claymores, so we thought we'd just irritate you to death...
participants (20)
-
Adam Back -
Adam Shostack -
Andy Lopata -
Bill O'Hanlon -
Bill Stewart -
David Crookes -
David Howe -
Declan McCullagh -
James A. Donald -
John Kelsey -
John Young -
Justin -
Kevin S. Van Horn -
Matt Beland -
Mike Rosing -
Neil Johnson -
R. A. Hettinga -
Steve Furlong -
Sunder -
Tim May